Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition for direction for reinvestigation of the Crime No.37 of 2007 on the file of Kedar Police Station, Vilupuram District by a new team of higher police officials and thereby direct them to file charge sheet and final report. 2. The petitioner has stated in his petition that he has filed Criminal Original petition No.6928 of 2007 before this Honourable Court for a direction to the respondents to register a case based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 05.03.2007. This Honourable Court issued direction to the 3rd respondent to register a case, on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that as per the G.O.Ms.No.270 of Co-operation, Food, and Consumer Food Department dated 111. 2006 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, free Gas connection should be given to all families not having LPG connection. One Mylathipathy, S/o Kasinatha Gounder, is the president of soorapattu panchayat, Villupuram Taluk and Arumbuli village comes under soorapattu panchayat. The said president collected Rs.350/- each from the villagers to make them eligible for the free gas connection. The collection of Rs.350/-is a corrupt practice and an illegality and the very purpose of the Government Order is sought to be belittled, and subverted. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and so a complaint was given to the 3rd respondent. 3. The complaint was not registered as a case by the 3rd respondent and only after the direction of this Honourable Court, that too, after the issuance of notice by the petitioner, through his counsel on 09.03.2007, the FIR was registered on 12.04.2007 in Kedar Police Station Crime No.37 of 2007 under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner further stated that thereafter no semblance of an investigation was conducted to process the matter further. Instead of that the 2nd respondent closed the FIR and cited mistake of facts as reason. Further, the petitioner has stated that the police have admitted the receipt of Rs.350/- for each connection but has said that the amount was received to fill-up the cylinder. But the Government Order does not, anywhere, authorise any one to receive any sum, either for filling up the cylinder or for any other purpose from the public or the eligible beneficiary. But the Government Order does not, anywhere, authorise any one to receive any sum, either for filling up the cylinder or for any other purpose from the public or the eligible beneficiary. The police have no authority to close the case as mistake of facts. The closure of the case as mistake of facts is totally unsustainable. Further, the petitioner has stated that the respondent police colluded with the president of the said panchayat in committing of the above said offence. Further, there is no material, for the police to arrive at such a conclusion. Further, the said president, Mayilathipathy wields considerable influence on the police. Hence, the petitioner seeks re-investigation by a new team of police. 4. The petitioner filed documents supporting his case wherein he has stated that on 05.03.2007, he lodged a complaint through R.P.A.D with the respondent police. After giving the said complaint, the petitioner approached this court for direction in Criminal Original Petition No.6928 of 2007. As per this Honourable Court direction, the case was registered on an alleged offence under section 420 IPC in Crime No. 37 of 2007. Further, the petitioner issued a legal notice also to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent sent a communication to the petitioners advocate that the respondent conducted enquiry and also examined connected witnesses, and that the police found that the Rs.350/- collected was for filling up the gas for which receipts were also issued to the concerned persons, out of which 15 persons were omitted from the said scheme for the reason that they are living in low rooted huts, hence there is a possibility for a fire accident, if they used the gas cylinder. With the above observation, the Respondent police closed the complaint. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the connected records, and arguments of the learned counsels for their respective parties, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is not an affected party, but he has taken legal steps for the welfare of the village people. But, no affected persons, as alleged by the petitioner, has so far come forward to express their grievance. Further, the petitioner is not an affected party in the said case. Under the circumstances, the Court declines to give direction for re-investigation with a new team of higher officials of police. 6. Accordingly, the above direction petition is dismissed. But, no affected persons, as alleged by the petitioner, has so far come forward to express their grievance. Further, the petitioner is not an affected party in the said case. Under the circumstances, the Court declines to give direction for re-investigation with a new team of higher officials of police. 6. Accordingly, the above direction petition is dismissed. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to file a private complaint, in accordance with law.